[GO HERE for an important follow-up post.]
I include the picture to the right, only, because, today, I went to the fantastic exhibit on the American painter George Bellows. Thus, “Stag at Starky’s”. The audience depicts the internet more than the opponents.
Regarding the need to attend two Masses to fulfill the obligation of Holy Day of Obligation preceding a Sunday (which is always a Holy Day of Obligation) Dr. Peters wrote… watch the moves….:
To satisfy the obligation to attend Mass on Immaculate Conception, must the Mass one attends in satisfaction of the Immaculate Conception obligation be [a] the Mass of the Immaculate Conception, celebrated before the evening of December 8, or, can it be [b] any Mass celebrated at any time beginning on the evening of December 7 and running till 11:59 pm December 8? I say the Latter.
And I rest my case.
Is that Mass also the eve, the vigil, of a Sunday?
Yes. It is!
Ergo… it satisfies also the obligation for Sunday. One Mass – two obligations satisfied. The formulary for Mass is not relevant.
Sometimes it works that way, because that is how we do law in the Church. We favor flexibility when burdens are imposed.
Others disagree. Others, such as Peters?, do not agree that we, according to the long-standing practice of interpretation, should interpret the law as flexibly as possible to allow for people. No. They impose burdens the law seems not to impose.
Liturgical time… blah blah blah… the law says on the day itself or the evening. The “day”. This time, they coincide. Let the law be made clearer if a burden is being imposed.
Also, auctores scinduntur. Given the doubt, all the more reason to be looser on the obligation.
In the meantime, I repeat, I think people should go to Mass twice. I will also repeat that I defer to proper authority.
I don’t think people should think in terms of the minimum. But I, a priest, learned that we use canon law also to help people be at ease about their obligations. That is why we interpret law strictly. Am I wrong?